Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world/non-destructive, yet the description adds real operational detail beyond them: free, no API key required, 6-hour cache, and the important interpretive caveat 'Signals, not a license.' That caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the trigger ('Call before...'), followed by sources, cost/caching, and a caveat. Dense and useful, though the enumerations of crawler names and sources add length that could be trimmed without much loss.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with the covered sources, caching behavior, and the 'signals, not a license' framing, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes this with an example call using domain; the optional path parameter gets no added meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (reads) and precise resources (robots.txt for 14 named AI crawlers, ai.txt, W3C TDMRep) and the outcome (summarizes whether AI training is opted out). This clearly distinguishes it from license-oriented siblings like check_license or assess_resource_for_use.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call before crawling, quoting or training on content from a website.' It does not name a specific alternative sibling or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of the top tier, but the actionable context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.